Evolution or Creation?

[shadow_dragon]

Though practically, in a fight between creation and evolution i think creation would win.

Evoltuion woudl sit there for millions of years trying stuff out and messing it up all the time while it tried to develop the correct tool sfor the job, opposable thumbs and brightly coloured feather for mating purposes while creation would've jsut stood there in it's sex-magnet-like glory, scoop up the still single celled organism and flame throw it with a lighter and a can of Lynx!

So with that logic i'd like to conclude that it must be Creation because if it were evolution it would've been burninated.



......................... What?

 

[dub]

I'm so having to force myself not to write my views on this - as this thread would turn into a bonfire.

but...

Just to let you know, science cannot and has not proven (nor disproven) either creation or evolution. Neither can be confirmed through scientific reasoning (observable, testable, repeatable), and both require just as much blind faith as the other.

I find it somewhat amusing that people look to sience to prove something like religion.

 

[DeeperShade]

I can't believe i'm typing this.

I agree with Tool.

Damn that burnt.

 

[NiftyBoy]

I should start making cliff-notes for my posts so people read them

 

[MÆST]

Both ... AKA: not voting in this poll till that option is covered.

 

[Bean 3:16]

Actually, the Bible was translated by man. Ever heard of the Johannine Comma?

Explain plz, me muy curious!

And for me, it doesn't matter to me very much, as it doesn't...concern me. I'm not sure if I'm conveying the right attitude, because it isn't because "ha, who cares". There are just other debatable issues that I can spend my time with that I can see tangible results from. A discussion on affirmative action does more than a discussion evo vs creation.

Anyways, Sir Brizz, fill me in plz.

 

[Nickelass]

these kind of threads are ususally a little heated, so ill just say that i personally believe in evolution, but if you want to believe in creation than that is fine with me as long as you are at least open to and understanding of all the other possibilities.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

Creation.

Let the Christian bashing begin. (although Christianity is not a requirement for Creationism)

No, it isn't. But please don't let me impede on your martyrdom complex.

I wouldn't be surprised if some superior being had created the universe and humanity. But anyone who believes that they know who the hell did so, and belives that they know how to secure eternal life by worship thereof, deserves to be chucked into their own lake of fire for stupdendous arrogance.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Renegade, you might want to check your facts. Evolution can and has been proven. What has not been proven is that all the diversity of life today has evolved from simple organisms, which themselves, according to this theory, arose out of inert material. It's beyond the scope of science as we know it now to prove things that occurred in such scales of time and space, much like it hasn't been proven that thermonuclear fusion is even the process that keeps stars "alive". There comes a point where there is enough evidence of an effect to justify confidence in the theory, in the case of the internal workings of the star, from spectroscopy and the observation of stars in different stages of their lives.

Trust me, I'm one of the few people here who's had a lot of exposure to the "facts." I won't bore you with my background info though....

Evolution can and has been proven. What has not been proven is that all the diversity of life today has evolved from simple organisms

You just contradicted yourself. First you say that evolution has been proven. Then the very next sentence, you say it has not.

I'm guessing that you're only arguing with me because I believe opposite as you. If that's the case, then that's a shallow basis.

Both ideologies require faith. Period. There is no concrete, bottom line, smoking gun for either account. Both arguments from a scientific standpoint have their valid arguments (for every argument you can find for evolution, there's one for creation as well), and both have their holes that can't be explained (for every unexplainable fact for evolution, there's one for creation). There is just as much evidence for both view points. It all boils down to one thing....what do you believe is the correct view.

Just because evolution is taught in the public schools does not mean it's science.

 

[NiftyBoy]

Renegade, if you can't construe what I mean by "Evolution has been proven. What has not been proven is that all the diversity of life today has evolved from simple organisms" then you clearly do not have an understanding of what evolution is. Allow me to indulge you with its definition in this context:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

This has been proven. The logic behind this should not be that hard to grasp. As I said, however, what has not been proven is that this process of small changes between generations is responsible for the emergence of all the life-forms today from one-celled organisms.

I'm guessing that you're only arguing with me because I believe opposite as you. If that's the case, then that's a shallow basis.

I'm not arguing. If you'll read my post, you'll see that I disagreed with you on the assumption that the theory of evolution and creationism both take the same kind of blind faith -- that the two are even comparable to begin with.

However, since you fell back onto the "they both take faith and are both fallible and have evidence" argument, it makes me wonder if you actually read all of my post, as nowhere did I praise the infrangibility of science. Allow me to repeat key points in case you missed/forgot them:
* It's beyond the scope of science as we know it now to prove things that occurred in such scales of time and space
* The difference between creationism and evolution is that one bases its ideas in measurable things, the other in the immeasurable. Perhaps the dawn of life is something that cannot be measured, or is not available to be such by our current approach, and perhaps this is the futility of the theory of evolution.
* This [creationism] is mental science, not physical science. The two are not parallel.

*The bottom line to me: evolution would joyfully prove itself wrong if evidence to do so arose...Creationism is what it is and there's no way you can disprove it; it's an abstract idea with evidence based in ideas like the theory of intelligent design and a personal knowledge of God...These are not things that can be disproved or proved, similarly how one cannot prove or disprove love and grief.

I don't enjoy quoting myself, but I also don't enjoy retyping points I've already made. Also, it would be prudent not to view dissenting views as arguments against your own.

 

[MÆST]

I think it's always good to clarify exactly what one means by evolution, because it may mean different things to different people. To make things easy, try and follow these capitalizing conventions in this thread:

evolution: Change in allele frequency in a population over time. This (reductionist) denotation represents the minimum phenomenon which biologists will, when questioned, admit fits the term ``evolution'' and cannot be covered completely under ``adaptation'', ``variation'', or the like. The means by which the allele frequency changes occur are the subjects of a number of theories, such as natural selection and genetic drift.

Evolution: The descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor or a relatively small set of common ancestors. This is the non-reductionist formulation of evolution.

(I started typing this before Mediocre's post which pretty much addressed the same issue)

 

[NiftyBoy]

Thanks for the clarification, Maest

 

[Sam_The_Man]

I am Mystiiiiiiic Meeeeeg and Iiiiii prediiiiict that this thread will be about the exact definition of evolution, the necessary standard of evidence to prove a theory a fact, and a wide array of obscure Latin logical fallacies (ad hominem, reductio ad absurdam etc.), and at no point will someone explain why the Christian creation myth is the only alternative to evolution.

 

[NiftyBoy]

Aw Sam don't jinx the thread

I agree about why there are only two options, though. What of Ymir, Brahma, or Tepeu? Or those of us who simply don't know?

 

[Zxanphorian]

I think it's always good to clarify exactly what one means by evolution, because it may mean different things to different people. To make things easy, try and follow these capitalizing conventions in this thread:

evolution: Change in allele frequency in a population over time. This (reductionist) denotation represents the minimum phenomenon which biologists will, when questioned, admit fits the term ``evolution'' and cannot be covered completely under ``adaptation'', ``variation'', or the like. The means by which the allele frequency changes occur are the subjects of a number of theories, such as natural selection and genetic drift.

Evolution: The descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor or a relatively small set of common ancestors. This is the non-reductionist formulation of evolution.

(I started typing this before Mediocre's post which pretty much addressed the same issue)

Heh, i never thought what the difference between e and E was. evolution i guess is the technical explanation, and Evolution is the theory explanation.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

Aw Sam don't jinx the thread

I agree about why there are only two options, though. What of Ymir, Brahma, or Tepeu? Or those of us who simply don't know?

At this point I formally ask the m0derators to add a tertiary option into the poll, so it reads:

-Evolution
-Creation
-NO-ONE KNOWS. JESUS CHRIST, SHUT THE F*CK UP. THE NEXT PERSON TO SAY "EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY" WILL BE THROWN OFF A CLIFF WITH A PIECE OF PAPER READING "GRAVITY IS ONLY A THEORY" NAILED TO THEIR CHEST.

 

[NiftyBoy]

I was being facetious but your sarcasm is appreciated

 

[Zarkazm]

Creation all the way. By that I mean the literal, Biblical account of Creation.

I am right, you are not, therefore, the bible must be bull****.

At this point I formally ask the m0derators to add a tertiary option into the poll, so it reads:

-Evolution
-Creation
-NO-ONE KNOWS. JESUS CHRIST, SHUT THE F*CK UP. THE NEXT PERSON TO SAY "EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY" WILL BE THROWN OFF A CLIFF WITH A PIECE OF PAPER READING "GRAVITY IS ONLY A THEORY" NAILED TO THEIR CHEST.

lol

 

[MÆST]

Heh, i never thought what the difference between e and E was. evolution i guess is the technical explanation, and Evolution is the theory explanation.

Probably because I just made up the whole captializing thing now for clarification. Kinda like the whole Libertarian vs libertarian thing.

-NO-ONE KNOWS. JESUS CHRIST, SHUT THE F*CK UP. THE NEXT PERSON TO SAY "EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY" WILL BE THROWN OFF A CLIFF WITH A PIECE OF PAPER READING "GRAVITY IS ONLY A THEORY" NAILED TO THEIR CHEST.

It's called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation for a reason. Though your point stands if you change GRAVITY to RELATIVITY or something similar.

 

[K]

It realy doesn't matter what you beleive, does it? When the Vogons come through and distroy the planet earth for the new intergalactic hyperspace bypass, you all will be wondering why were we waisting time pondering existance when we should have been trying to come up with a way to get out of here? Sh!t the dolphins managed to escape the planet, and we humans will just parish. Fitting end to such a stupid race of creatures.